COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00485-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.L.F., T.L.F., 

K.D.B., II, A.A.H., AND N.C.H., 

CHILDREN

----------

FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1

----------

I. Introduction

Appellant L.J. (Mother) appeals the trial court’s judgment terminating her 

parental rights to her five children. After a bench trial, the trial court found that 

Mother had engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons 

who had engaged in conduct that endangered the physical or emotional well-

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

being of the children and had knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children 

to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered their physical or 

emotional well-being.

2

 The trial court also found that Mother has a mental or 

emotional illness or mental deficiency that renders her unable to provide for the 

children’s needs and that the illness or deficiency would in all reasonable 

probability continue to render Mother unable to provide for the children through 

their eighteenth birthdays.3In addition, the trial court found that termination of 

Mother’s parental rights would be in the children’s best interest. Mother 

challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence in four issues. We 

affirm.

II. Background

Mother has five children. At the time of trial in March 2011, L.L.F. was nine 

years old, T.L.F. was six years old, K.D.B. was five years old, A.A.H. was three 

years old, and N.C.H. was seventeen months old.

In August 2007, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services 

(the Department) received a referral that Mother had been hospitalized after 

attempting to overdose on medication. Department investigator Brandy 

Matthews testified that Mother “had asked her oldest child to stab her in the 

stomach[,] and she was currently pregnant at the time.” Mother told Matthews 

 

2See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(D), (E) (West Supp. 2011).

3See id. § 161.003 (West 2008).
3

that she had taken some pills, had a knife, and had thought about stabbing 

herself with it, but Mother denied having asked L.L.F. to stab her. Mother also 

told Matthews that she had smoked marijuana three weeks earlier.

Matthews testified that L.L.F., T.L.F., and K.D.B. lived with Mother at the 

time of the suicide attempt. L.L.F., who was five years old at the time, told 

Matthews that she had seen Mother take two pills, that Mother had asked her to 

stab her, but that she had refused. The three children were removed and placed 

into foster care. A.A.H. was born in January 2008 but was not removed from 

Mother because the Department did not believe she was in danger since Mother 

was receiving services from the Department at the time.

Takeisha Lusk-Wilkerson served as Mother’s caseworker for the 2007 

referral. Mother’s service plan included parenting classes and random drug 

testing, and mental health services provided by Tarrant County Mental 

Health/Mental Retardation (MHMR). Mother also submitted to a psychological 

evaluation. She was diagnosed as bipolar and as having a personality disorder. 

Mother participated in services through MHMR, mostly for medication 

management, and started taking medication after A.A.H.’s birth. Although she 

was in jail for three weeks in February 2008 for a bond violation relating to a 

previous arrest, Mother was, as of April 2008, generally doing well. She was 

taking psychotropic medication, avoiding aggressive and violent behaviors, and 

stable.
4

Gladys Demus took over as Mother’s caseworker in May 2008. She 

testified that her main goals for Mother were for her to take her medication and to 

not lose her social security income. Mother’s social security benefits were cut off 

in July 2008 because of a warrant for her arrest, and they were not reinstated 

until October 2008. Also in July 2008, the Department received a new referral 

that was called in by one of Mother’s neighbors. Mother told Demus that she had 

ended a relationship with her neighbor’s eighteen- or nineteen-year-old son, 

which led to a disagreement with the neighbor, and the neighbor made 

allegations about Mother to the Department. Mother also told Demus that she 

had stopped taking her medication “because it made her feel funny.” Demus 

testified that when she spoke to Mother, Mother was struggling to complete her 

services and seemed to be getting overwhelmed. Demus testified that she was 

concerned about Mother’s temper, saying that Mother was very nice and calm 

one moment but loud and uncontrollable another. Mother promised to resume 

taking her medication but did not do so, later saying that she did not need her 

medication.

In February 2009, the Department decided to begin a monitored return of 

the children to Mother, and the children began weekend visitations with Mother. 

Mother’s case was also transferred to the Department’s Strengthening Families 

Unit, and Schauntae Kato became Mother’s caseworker. Kato described the 

Strengthening Families Unit as an intense program designed to work with 

families who are at risk for neglect of their children.
5

Kato testified that Mother told her that she was not taking her medication 

because it made her tired and unable to respond to her children the way she 

wanted. Mother also told Kato that she was pregnant again. Mother said she felt 

overwhelmed, and she reported that the children were not listening to her and 

that they were not on a regular schedule for meals, bedtime, or daycare. Kato 

offered Mother continued counseling and parenting classes. Kato also arranged 

for the Department to pay Mother’s rent in March 2009.

Kato testified that Mother still did not have food stamps or Medicaid in 

February 2009, even though eighteen months had passed since the children 

were initially removed. The children, however, had Medicaid coverage through 

the Department. Mother began receiving her own Medicaid benefits in May 

2009.

Kato testified that the children were doing “okay” in March 2009. They had 

been through quite a transition from having been away from home and then 

returning to Mother, and they were having some behavioral problems. L.L.F., the 

oldest child, was attending a school within walking distance of Mother’s 

apartment. Kato testified that the children were properly clothed and did not 

appear malnourished, and she said that Mother used money from the 

Department to purchase furniture for the children.

Christy Stewart was Mother’s Catholic Charities caseworker beginning in 

April 2009. Mother admitted to Stewart that she was not seeing a doctor or 

taking her bipolar medication, and she told Stewart that she was hearing voices 
6

and had to fight them off. Mother also told Stewart on April 8 about domestic

violence in her relationship with D.H.,4and she said that she had been putting 

bleach in D.H.’s food, not to kill him but to make him sick. D.H. told Stewart that 

the bleach allegation was “ridiculous,” but Stewart contacted the Department 

because of what Mother had told her.

Kato testified that the children were removed from Mother for one or two 

nights following the report concerning the bleach. After considering the situation, 

including that Mother had recently been set up to begin MHMR services, the

Department returned the children to Mother. Kato testified that she believed the 

April 2009 decision to not permanently remove the children was risky because 

Mother was not yet taking medication and was exhibiting concerning behavior. 

However, none of Mother’s behavior was directed at the children, and D.H. did 

not believe the bleach allegation to be true.

After the children were returned to Mother, Mother told Kato that L.L.F. had 

written a note to a boy at school, asking if they could have sex when they grew 

up. Kato interviewed L.L.F., but L.L.F. did not make any sexual abuse outcry.

Kato also testified about other difficulties for Mother after the children were 

returned to her in April 2009. Mother would not go to the county hospital for 

medications. Kato spoke with Sharon Fountain of MHMR on May 27, 2009, and 

the hope was for MHMR to deal with Mother’s mental health issues by providing 

 

4D.H. is A.A.H. and N.C.H.’s biological father.
7

employment assistance, community support, clinical support, medication 

management, and respite care. But Mother had difficulty with MHMR 

appointments, such as acting out and not understanding when additional 

information was required, so Kato personally took Mother to MHMR. Kato 

testified that MHMR accepted Mother as a client, but only after Kato had 

salvaged the situation. Also, Mother’s request for public housing was denied on 

June 1 because of her criminal history. Even so, the court renamed Mother the 

children’s permanent managing conservator in June 2009, and Mother resumed 

taking her MHMR medications in July. Kato testified that Mother’s case was 

closed in October 2009, but Kato also testified that she had ongoing concerns 

with Mother’s medication because Mother had again stopped taking it due to her 

pregnancy. However, Kato acknowledged that Mother was better than she had 

been at the time of the 2007 referral.

Suzanne Gorry started working with Mother after N.C.H. was born in 

October 2009. Gorry works for the Department in its Family-Based Safety 

Services Unit, which monitors and provides continuing services for families. The 

Department initiated the continuing services because Mother tested positive for 

marijuana four times during her pregnancy with N.C.H. When services began, all 

five of Mother’s children were living with Mother.

Gorry testified that Mother’s primary issue was mental health, but Gorry 

also said that she had concerns about Mother’s substance abuse and parenting 
8

skills. Gorry knew Mother’s history from reviewing the case file and felt that 

Mother was not applying what she should have learned from previous services.

In December 2009 and January 2010, the Department gave Mother $400 

to pay rent for a new apartment because she had received an eviction notice. 

Mother, D.H., and the children were living in the apartment. They were receiving 

about $700 per month in social security income and food stamps. Mother told 

Gorry that she and D.H. had a verbal agreement with the previous apartment 

manager to receive six months of free rent because of a bug infestation in their 

apartment, but Gorry testified that the new apartment manager did not know 

anything about a verbal agreement. By mid-December 2009, Mother blamed 

Gorry for not finding a new apartment for the family. Gorry also testified that on 

January 12, 2010, Mother and D.H. were waiting for her at her office, saying they 

needed the rent money. Mother became upset because Gorry did not have it. 

Gorry testified that Mother had to be escorted from the lobby because she was 

angry and yelling. Gorry acknowledged, however, that losing an apartment can 

be upsetting but said that Mother’s conduct was not appropriate because, in her 

opinion, Mother should not yell at the person trying to help her.

Gorry testified that Mother was not participating in MHMR services. 

Mother said she could not make her appointments, but Gorry testified that she 

had set it up so that the worker would go to Mother’s house. Mother also told 

Gorry that she was not taking her medication. Gorry testified that she did not 
9

believe that Mother was taking medications at any time between December 2009 

and April 2010.

On January 22, 2010, Mother called Gorry and said that D.H. had left her 

and the children. Mother was very upset and crying, and she later told Gorry that 

there had been domestic violence between her and D.H. However, Gorry 

testified that D.H. had returned home by the next week.

In late-January, Mother was not at home when Gorry arrived to take her to 

a psychological evaluation. D.H. and Gorry made phone calls to try to find 

Mother, but they did not locate her.5 D.H. told Gorry that he had lost his job 

because he had been having to stay home to care for the children. D.H. also told 

Gorry that Mother was not home a lot, that she went out at night and would not 

come back, that he did not know what to do about Mother, that he did not think 

she would get the help she needs, and that she was not staying off of drugs.6

D.H. said that he did not know how much longer he could put up with Mother and 

that things were not getting better.7 He told Gorry that Mother said she did not 

need medication.

By the end of February, Mother’s in-home parenting services were 

discontinued because Mother had several no-shows. On March 5, Gorry had a 

 

5Mother later told Gorry that she forgot about the psychological evaluation 

and was out looking for a job.

6However, Mother’s drug tests near that time were negative.

7Mother told Gorry on January 28, 2010, that D.H. had moved out again.
10

telephone conversation with Mother during which Mother was yelling and cursing 

at someone else. Mother said that she was applying for a job at the apartment 

complex from which she had previously been evicted, that the manager told her 

to get off the phone, and that Mother became angry and yelled profanities about 

the manager. Gorry testified that L.L.F. was at the apartment complex with 

Mother during the incident.

Gorry testified that the Department increased the “severity level” of 

Mother’s case on March 16, 2010. Mother had reported that D.H. had moved out 

and would not return, and the Department had received a new referral alleging 

that drugs were being sold from the home and that the children were being left 

alone while Mother used drugs. Mother told Gorry that she thought the referral 

came in because a woman had stolen movies from her and because she had 

gone to the woman’s house and “busted up everything.”

Gorry met with Mother the next day, and she testified that Mother’s 

behavior was concerning. Mother reported having really big mood swings and 

said she wanted to call her MHMR worker to possibly take her medications 

again. Despite the drug allegation, Gorry testified that she had not seen Mother 

using or possessing drugs and agreed that the drug use allegations were all 

based on third-party reports. Even so, the Department staffed the case for a 

possible removal of the children.

Gorry testified that, on March 24, 2010, Mother’s apartment had “dirty 

diapers, ashtrays on the floor, trash, [and] clothing everywhere.” She testified 
11

that Mother’s apartment was always cluttered and dirty. Department investigator 

Melinda Esquibel was also present on March 24, and she described the condition 

of Mother’s apartment as follows:

There was -- when you went into the living room, there was a 

lot of blankets and clothing and just a bunch of various items all over 

the floors. Very, very cluttered. And, I mean, you could not walk 

through the living room without walking on something in there. 

There was some clothing laying all over the sofa and the chairs. The 

kitchen table was full of dishes and foods. In the bedrooms, there 

was one bedroom you couldn’t even go in because it was so 

cluttered with clothing and furniture and toys.

In the children’s room, there was also trash on the floor, 

clothing, open empty containers -- peroxide -- and the restroom was 

cluttered with various items, too.

Esquibel also testified that a Mr. D., who was living with Mother and the 

children, admitted using marijuana and that Mother requested that he leave the 

home. Esquibel testified that the condition of Mother’s home was the theme of 

her investigation but that she also had concerns about Mother’s mental health 

issues. She said that during the March 24 visit, Mother went from “really nice 

and friendly, talking” to crying and that several times she moved her arm as if she 

would hit Gorry. Mother told Esquibel that she was not taking bipolar medication.

Esquibel also spoke with D.H., who told her that Mother “was a time bomb 

waiting to go off,” that Mother was “oblivious to reality,” and that he was 

concerned about Mother not taking her medication. D.H. said that Mother would 

call or text him just to start arguments. D.H. told Esquibel that he was concerned 
12

for the safety of his children and that he supported whatever decision the 

Department made to keep them safe.

Gorry also visited Mother’s apartment on March 31. Mother, Mr. D., T.L.F., 

K.D.B., and N.C.H. were present, and the condition of the apartment was a 

“slight improvement” from March 24. The Department sought removal of the 

children on April 1, and the trial court granted the Department’s request.

Gorry talked with D.H. on April 2. He said that Mother and Mr. D. were 

using marijuana. He also said that living with Mother was torture, like being at 

war, and that she was “crazy.” On April 5, Mother admitted to Gorry in a 

telephone conversation that she had used marijuana during her pregnancy but 

only when she was pregnant. Because the children had been removed, Mother’s 

case was assigned to a different caseworker, and Gorry was no longer involved.

Abigail Flores served as Mother’s caseworker from approximately May 

2010 through trial. Mother’s service plan required that she attend parenting 

classes and individual counseling, submit to a drug assessment, maintain stable 

housing and employment, and continue with her MHMR services. Flores testified 

that Mother had kept in touch with MHMR even though she had not always been 

compliant. Flores told Mother that she and the Department expected a higher 

level of MHMR participation than before, and Mother said she would take 

medication and work her services. Flores testified that Mother took advantage of 

visitation opportunities in May 2010.
13

Mother had a Medicaid card as of May 2010, but her Medicaid was 

terminated in June 2010 and later reinstated without a lapse in services. By June 

2010, Mother had been dismissed from individual counseling by Catholic 

Charities but had again started counseling with Positive Influences.8 However, 

Stacia Alexander, the executive director of Positive Influences, testified that 

Mother was subsequently discharged from Positive Influences because of 

missed appointments. Alexander also described an incident involving Mother 

during one of her counseling appointments. Alexander testified that she 

intervened in one of Mother’s sessions after hearing elevated voices from 

another office. When Alexander arrived, Mother was agitated, upset, tearful, and 

irritable. Alexander agreed that clients become upset at times during counseling 

but testified that Mother’s behavior was unusual.

Flores testified that Mother had ended her relationship with Mr. D. by June 

2010, but Mother reported to Flores that she was still having financial stress. 

Mother had also been dropped from parenting classes by this time for nonattendance, and she told Flores that she had not attended because she had a lot 

going on.

Flores testified that Mother was trying to work her services in July 2010 but 

that her progress was minimal. Mother claimed that she could not reach Positive 

Influences and that they were not returning her calls. Flores testified that Mother 

 

8

Flores added that Mother had not benefitted from the counseling sessions 

she had attended before being discharged.
14

was compliant with MHMR other than medication management, attended her 

psychological assessment, and consistently attended visitations with the children. 

Mother did not submit to a drug assessment. Flores also testified that Mother 

attended three of twelve parenting class sessions and between four and six of 

twelve individual counseling sessions before being discharged for nonattendance. Mother had also not been employed, but Flores acknowledged that 

her recommendation that the court terminate Mother’s parental rights would not 

change if Mother had been employed.

In September 2010, Mother told Flores that she was taking her medication. 

However, Mother lost her Medicaid again in October 2010, and it had not been 

reinstated as of the time of trial. Mother also told Flores about volatility within her 

own family. She was attacked by her brother on July 12, 2010, and August 30, 

2010, and someone hit her with some keys on October 27, 2010. Flores testified 

that she saw an injury to Mother from one incident with her brother, and Flores

described the injury as a gash on the side of Mother’s neck, like a scratch, that 

extended from the back of her neck to the front. In November 2010, D.H. told 

Flores that Mother was “crazy”; he said “she was out of there and that she was a 

split personality and she flips.”

Flores testified that Mother did well with the children at visitations and that 

Mother loves them. Flores said that it is hard to control the children because 

they are kind of hyper, but Mother was attentive to the children, tried to redirect 

them, and brought them food. However, Mother became very upset in front of 
15

the children during one visitation. Flores testified that when Mother “gets upset, 

she gets really, really upset[,] and it takes a lot to really calm her down. She 

raises her voice[,] and she cries a lot.” Flores testified that when she asked 

Mother if she was taking her medication, Mother answered, “What good would it 

do?”

Flores testified that Mother was incarcerated days before trial for missing a 

criminal court date. Mother had informed Flores of the charge a week or two 

earlier. Mother did not attend the court hearing because she was at a visitation 

with L.L.F.

Flores said that Mother was initially arrested for impeding a peace officer 

by standing between the officer and the suspect, and Mother gave Flores her 

version of what had occurred. Mother was at her parents’ third-floor apartment, 

and they heard police activity on the bottom floor. Her brother went downstairs, 

and the police followed him back upstairs. Mother said she was trying to get her 

brother into the apartment to prevent him from going back to prison when the 

police came through the door and pushed everyone down. Flores testified that it 

was concerning to her that Mother was being accused of conduct consistent with 

an untreated bipolar condition.9

 

9On a March 29, 2011 document contained within Mother’s jail records, 

Mother answered that she does not take medications. Trial in this case began on 

March 30, 2011.
16

Flores testified that, in her opinion, Mother cannot meet the minimal duties 

that parents owe to their children and that termination of Mother’s parental rights 

to the children is in the children’s best interest. Flores testified that the children 

need stability and do not need to be going back and forth between Mother and 

foster care and that Mother cannot provide that stability. Flores testified that the 

Department had educated Mother and given her the tools necessary to parent 

her children but that Mother still cannot provide the children with stability.

Flores testified that A.A.H. and N.C.H. are together in foster care and are 

doing well. She said that A.A.H. is “a handful,” a little active, and very strongwilled. A.A.H. is attending speech therapy and is doing really well in the foster 

home. Flores testified that N.C.H. is a “happy-go-lucky baby”; she has only cried 

once, and only because she was sick. Flores said that N.C.H. is kind of sickly 

and deals with a lot of allergies and congestion, but she had tubes placed in her 

ears, which has helped. Flores also testified that the foster family is a potential 

adoption placement for the two girls if Mother’s parental rights are terminated.

Flores also described T.L.F. and K.D.B. They are together in a different 

foster home because the Department could not find a foster home for all five 

children. Flores said that T.L.F. and K.D.B. are “pretty active kids[,] and they’re 

hard to control when they’re together because they are active.” She testified that 

T.L.F. is doing really well and is very talkative; she gets in trouble at school for 

talking, but not for any other reasons. She is “really sweet,” doing well in school, 

and is a dancer. Flores testified that T.L.F. offered to teach her “how to boogie.” 
17

K.D.B. is attending counseling in a full-day program and speech therapy, and he 

has improved a lot with his speech. Flores said that he “kind of sits back and 

he’s always fighting for attention because he’s the only boy, but he’s also doing 

well.” The children are all together at visitations.

Flores testified that all of the children other than N.C.H. attend counseling. 

T.L.F. is in counseling because “she sexually acts out where she will stand in 

front of the mirror and touch herself,” because of the things she has reported 

seeing, including people yelling, and because of the separation from home. 

K.D.B. is in counseling because of his separation from home.

Flores testified that L.L.F. is in a residential treatment center (RTC), not a 

foster home, because she had to be removed from three different foster 

placements within a two-to-three month period. L.L.F. was removed from the first 

placement (with K.D.B. and T.L.F.) because she tried to control them and told

them to do things that would get them in trouble. She also started hitting K.D.B. 

and T.L.F. and had to be watched closely before she was moved to another 

foster home. She was moved to a third foster home because of her behavior; 

she hit the foster parents’ children and “was dragging them down the hallway and 

she ripped some curtains down from the wall and she was destroying property.” 

L.L.F. has been in the RTC since January 2011 and has stayed at the same level 

through the time of trial. Flores testified that A.A.H.’s and N.C.H.’s foster family 

has stated a willingness to accept L.L.F. but that L.L.F. is not at a point where 

she can be integrated into the home.
18

Flores also testified that a home study of K.D.B.’s paternal grandmother 

was completed just before trial, but Flores did not know the result. If placement 

with K.D.B.’s paternal grandmother is approved, K.D.B. would be placed there, 

and T.L.F would go to the foster home where A.A.H. and N.C.H. live and where 

L.L.F. might eventually live after discharge from the RTC. Flores also described 

the services available to adoptive parents, regardless of who those adoptive 

parents may be.

D.H. testified that he is the father of A.A.H. and N.C.H.10 He testified that 

he did not believe Mother attempted suicide in 2007, but he acknowledged 

learning at that time that Mother had emotional problems that required treatment. 

He testified that he saw Mother take her medication between August 2007 and 

the time when the children were returned to her, but he acknowledged seeing her 

mood swings. D.H. testified that Mother had exhibited these mood swings from 

2007 to the present and said that he had seen Mother “bust out emotionally” and 

cry “quite a lot.” D.H. reiterated that he thinks Mother took her medication when 

he was around, but he also acknowledged that, looking back, he believes Mother 

was probably not taking her medication. He also recalled her talking about the 

side-effects of the medication, such as headaches and vomiting.

 

10The trial court denied the Department’s request that D.H.’s parental rights 

to A.A.H. and N.C.H. be terminated, finding that termination would not be in their 

best interest.
19

D.H. agreed that he had previously said living with Mother was like torture, 

testifying that she always wanted to argue. He also recalled his stated belief that 

Mother and Mr. D. were using marijuana in her apartment, and he testified that 

he smelled “stuff” in the house. D.H. testified that Mother denied using marijuana 

when he asked her about it, but he did not believe her. D.H. testified that he 

does not believe that Mother put bleach in his food.

D.H. described Mother as follows:

[Mother] is a good woman. She just needs help. She’s a 

good mother. She does need help, constructive help, and me being 

a father to those children, of all the children, you know, I do the best 

I can as a father, but when you go through these changes of 

emotion and mood swings and numerous of people [sic],

[Department] workers know her moods. They read the papers. They

know her history, you know. I needed their help. They knew what 

was going on. And one day, she’s 100 percent, you know, working 

with me, and two hours later, it’s a totally different person.

She just needs help. She does need help.

D.H. testified that he does not want his children, A.A.H. and N.C.H., to go 

through the chaos and trouble that the older children have lived through with 

Mother. He testified that Mother is an appropriate parent but that it is not a good 

idea for the court to return the children to her.

Mother also testified. She acknowledged having not finished her service 

plan and said that she initially had transportation issues with Catholic Charities 

and had asked for and received a transfer to a closer location. She also admitted 

that she later stopped going without excuse. Mother testified that she attended 

the majority of her visitations; that she has a good relationship with the children; 
20

that they ran to her, told her they love her, and asked when they are going home; 

and that during visitations, she and the children played together, talked about 

their daily routines, and interacted a lot. Mother testified that she always brought 

the children food and that she had occasionally bought them toys to take home.

Mother testified that she was, at the time of trial, not currently taking her 

medications because she ran out a month earlier and had been taking her 

medication every three days so it would last until her Medicaid was reinstated. 

Mother testified that her Medicaid became effective the same day of her 

testimony, and she said her previous Medicaid lapses were related to confusion 

over whether she was getting Medicare through Social Security. Mother denied 

having told anyone that she was not taking her medication in the past, and she 

testified that she had only “stretched” her medications for the last month before 

trial. She testified that the medication helps but that memory loss is a side-effect.

Mother testified that she receives $701 each month in social security 

income, and her rent is $495 per month.11 She supports herself by using money 

that she had saved from a tax refund, social security reimbursements, and past 

employment. Mother testified that she has lived in the same one-bedroom 

apartment since August 2010 and that she had worked at Dollar General for four 

months of seasonal employment and at a temporary service job for a week. She 

 

11The actual amount of each monthly check is $604 per month because a 

premium is deducted monthly. The premium is later reimbursed.
21

said she is looking for employment and has filled out a lot of applications. She 

also receives $165 in food stamps each month.

Mother testified that she would rent a two-bedroom apartment if the 

children were returned to her. Rent for that apartment would be $595, and 

Mother agreed that she would not have the money to pay for daycare for the 

children. She testified that she can work but not too much because it would 

affect her social security eligibility. She also testified that she has already 

purchased furniture for the children.

Mother denied needing governmental assistance to maintain stability; 

instead, she testified that she wanted to take advantage of what was offered to 

her by the Department. Specifically concerning the Department’s rent payments 

on her behalf, she testified that she did not need the money and wished she had 

not asked Gorry for it because of how it had made her look in court. Mother 

denied yelling at Gorry about rent money but acknowledged being asked to leave 

for being “a little bit too loud.” Also, Mother said that she did not ask 

Strengthening Families for money but was told there was money available to her 

for furniture.

Mother acknowledged that she became very emotional at a counseling 

session at Positive Influences, but she testified that she was upset because 

someone told her she would not get her children back since she had missed too 

many classes. Mother testified that she was not angry at the workers, that she 

was instead upset about having her parental rights terminated, and that she was 
22

hyperventilating and coughing. She testified that she calmed down after 

Alexander explained the court process to her.

Mother lived with D.H. from early 2007 through February 2010, but she 

testified that he was in and out of her house. She denied putting bleach in D.H.’s 

food or ever telling anyone that she had done so. Mother denied having a violent 

relationship with D.H. and testified that she disagreed with D.H.’s testimony that 

living with her was torture. She testified that D.H. is a good father but that she 

has no plans to get back with him.

Mother acknowledged having clothes all over her house, but she testified 

that the children’s diapers were in the trash; trash could have been overflowing a 

little, but she said her apartment was nothing like what other witnesses had 

described. Mother denied using marijuana or admitting to anyone that she had 

used marijuana, saying that she last used marijuana in 2007 and that she had 

never used marijuana while pregnant. Mother denied ever hearing voices or 

telling anyone that she had, and she also denied having attempted suicide in 

2007. Mother testified that she took one Tramadol but felt nauseous, so she 

called an ambulance for herself. She also called her mother to come watch the

children.

Mother agreed that she had difficulties between August 2007 and June 

2009, and she described the difficulties as follows:

I had just lost my job. That’s how I ended up getting that aggravated 

assault thing, so I ended up losing my job, I ended up losing my 

apartment, my mom ended up dying, and I felt like, you know, I was
23

like depressed, I was crying, I was feeling like, you know, how can 

this happen, what is going on, you know, with me being pregnant 

and me defending myself from being attacked, so that’s mainly what 

it was. And then [D.H.], he was cheating on me.

She testified that she now has her father and friends to support her when 

she needs it, even with paying bills. She said that Mr. D. was her boyfriend but 

that she had not seen him since September 2010.

Mother testified that she wants D.H. to have her children if she cannot 

have them but that she wants them back. She said that the children should be 

returned to her because she has never abused them, loves them, makes sure 

they get their education, takes care of them, and has a bond with them.

Mother testified that L.L.F. is doing structured activities every day at the 

RTC, receiving counseling, and going to school. She said that they are “help[ing] 

her be calm at what she does, because she has an attitude.” However, Mother 

testified that L.L.F. did not start acting out until she was removed the second 

time, that she started withdrawing, and that she missed Mother. Mother testified 

that the children had structure when they lived with her.

Finally, Mother testified that she was arrested the day before trial began 

because she had missed a criminal court date while she was in Brownwood for a 

visitation with L.L.F., who she had not seen in two months. Mother testified that 

the issue had been resolved, and she expected to be released the day of her 

testimony because she had pleaded guilty and had been sentenced to 

community service and time served.
24

Dr. Parnell Ryan, a psychologist, conducted a psychological assessment 

of Mother in October 2007. In his assessment, Dr. Ryan noted that Mother 

admitted attempting suicide. She denied having auditory hallucinations, but she 

told Dr. Ryan that she had been diagnosed with ADHD, depression, bipolar 

disorder, and an anxiety disorder and that she was not taking medication at the 

time. Mother said that she had overdosed at age thirteen and had been 

prescribed psychotropic medication from age fifteen forward. Mother also 

informed Dr. Ryan of past physical altercations between her and the father of two

of her children. Mother admitted past drug use, specifically marijuana, and said 

she had two convictions for assaultive offenses.

Dr. Ryan testified that, on the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, Mother 

scored in the borderline range of intellectual functioning. She demonstrated 

elementary-school-level comprehension on each element of an academic 

functioning test. For Mother’s emotional functioning, Dr. Ryan testified that his 

diagnostic impressions were that Mother has a bipolar disorder and cannibas 

dependence. Dr. Ryan also testified that Mother has “Personality Disorder Not 

Otherwise Specified,” which means that she has “antisocial dependent traits” that 

could become a “full-blown” personality disorder if she did not take the time to 

treat herself. Dr. Ryan testified that Mother’s disorders are treatable but that they 

require honesty and “a great deal of work.” When asked to give his outlook for 

Mother after being informed that she had continued to not take her medication 

and to have anger and explosive behaviors two and one-half years later, Dr. 
25

Ryan testified that his prognosis would change from “favorably-guarded” to 

“poor.”

Dr. Amy Fisher-Smith, a licensed clinical psychologist, conducted a 

psychological evaluation of Mother in June 2010. She asked Mother to complete 

a personality assessment and a parental stress index, and she obtained a family 

and social history. Dr. Fisher-Smith testified that she noticed that Mother’s 

emotions were “kind of all over the place. She would have crying spells and then 

she would have a more stable mood and then she would become irritable, and 

then maybe a little euphoric.” Mother said to her, “I hate myself. What did I do? 

All I want is love, and I can’t get it from nobody. I hate men, and I like being 

alone.”

Dr. Fisher-Smith testified that she assessed Mother as having Bipolar One 

Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and she included a rule-out 

diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Dr. Fisher-Smith also testified that 

she assessed Mother with having borderline personality disorder and a need to 

rule out antisocial personality disorder. She testified that Mother’s bipolar 

disorder can be managed with medication and therapy and that although there 

are treatments for antisocial disorder that can be effective, treatment is more 

complicated. Dr. Fisher-Smith explained that Mother’s case is particularly 

complex because she has both bipolar and antisocial diagnoses, which makes 

treatment more difficult.
26

Dr. Fisher-Smith described Mother as mildly- to moderately-impaired in 

terms of making parental decisions, and she testified that the failure to follow and 

receive treatment puts Mother more on the moderate end of parental impairment. 

She testified that parenting five children would be inherently more difficult for 

anyone but especially so for Mother and that Mother definitely cannot parent 

during depressive episodes. Dr. Fisher-Smith testified that the future prognosis 

for a person with a bipolar condition depends on what the person has or has not 

proven they can or will do for medication management and therapeutic 

intervention.

III. Standards of Review

A parent’s rights to “the companionship, care, custody, and management” 

of his or her children are constitutional interests “far more precious than any 

property right.” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758–59, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 

1397 (1982); In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 547 (Tex. 2003). “While parental rights 

are of constitutional magnitude, they are not absolute. Just as it is imperative for 

courts to recognize the constitutional underpinnings of the parent-child 

relationship, it is also essential that emotional and physical interests of the child 

not be sacrificed merely to preserve that right.” In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 26

(Tex. 2002). In a termination case, the State seeks not just to limit parental rights 

but to erase them permanently—to divest the parent and child of all legal rights, 

privileges, duties, and powers normally existing between them, except for the 

child’s right to inherit. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.206(b) (West 2008); Holick v. 
27

Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985). We strictly scrutinize termination 

proceedings and strictly construe involuntary termination statutes in favor of the 

parent. Holick, 685 S.W.2d at 20–21; In re R.R., 294 S.W.3d 213, 233 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.).

In proceedings to terminate the parent-child relationship brought under 

section 161.001 of the family code, the petitioner must establish one ground 

listed under subsection (1) of the statute and must also prove that termination is 

in the best interest of the child. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001 (West Supp. 

2011); In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2005). Both elements must be 

established; termination may not be based solely on the best interest of the child 

as determined by the trier of fact. Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 

S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987); In re D.T., 34 S.W.3d 625, 629 (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth 2000, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g).

Termination decisions must be supported by clear and convincing 

evidence. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001; see also id. § 161.206(a) (West 

2008). Evidence is clear and convincing if it “will produce in the mind of the trier 

of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be

established.” Id. § 101.007 (West 2008). Due process demands this heightened 

standard because termination results in permanent, irrevocable changes for the 

parent and child. In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 263 (Tex. 2002); see In re J.A.J., 

243 S.W.3d 611, 616 (Tex. 2007) (contrasting standards for termination and 

modification).
28

In evaluating the evidence for legal sufficiency in parental termination 

cases, we determine whether the evidence is such that a factfinder could 

reasonably form a firm belief or conviction that the grounds for termination were 

proven. In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. 2005). We review all the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and judgment. Id. We resolve 

any disputed facts in favor of the finding if a reasonable factfinder could have 

done so. Id. We disregard all evidence that a reasonable factfinder could have 

disbelieved. Id. We consider undisputed evidence even if it is contrary to the 

finding. Id. That is, we consider evidence favorable to termination if a 

reasonable factfinder could, and we disregard contrary evidence unless a 

reasonable factfinder could not. Id.

We cannot weigh witness credibility issues that depend on the appearance 

and demeanor of the witnesses, for that is the factfinder’s province. Id. at 573, 

574. And even when credibility issues appear in the appellate record, we defer 

to the factfinder’s determinations as long as they are not unreasonable. Id. at 

573.

In reviewing the evidence for factual sufficiency, we give due deference to 

the factfinder’s findings and do not supplant the judgment with our own. In re 

H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105, 108 (Tex. 2006). We determine whether, on the entire 

record, a factfinder could reasonably form a firm conviction or belief that the 

parent violated the relevant conduct provision of section 161.001(1) and that the 

termination of the parent-child relationship would be in the best interest of the 
29

child. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001; C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28. If, in light of the 

entire record, the disputed evidence that a reasonable factfinder could not have 

credited in favor of the finding is so significant that a factfinder could not 

reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction in the truth of its finding, then 

the evidence is factually insufficient. H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d at 108.

IV. Statutory Endangerment

Mother argues in her first and second issues that the evidence is legally 

and factually insufficient to support the trial court’s section 161.001(1)(D) and (E) 

findings.

A. Applicable Law

“Endanger” means to expose to loss or injury, to jeopardize. Boyd, 727 

S.W.2d at 533; In re J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d 117, 125 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, 

no pet.). Under section 161.001(1)(D), it is necessary to examine evidence 

related to the environment of the children to determine if the environment was the 

source of endangerment to the children’s physical or emotional well-being. 

J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d at 125. Conduct of a parent in the home can create an 

environment that endangers the physical and emotional well-being of a child. In 

re W.S., 899 S.W.2d 772, 776 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no writ). For 

example, abusive or violent conduct by a parent or other resident of a child’s 

home may produce an environment that endangers the physical or emotional 

well-being of a child. See id. at 776–77; Ziegler v. Tarrant Cnty. Child Welfare 

Unit, 680 S.W.2d 674, 678 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.). 
30

Parental and caregiver illegal drug use and drug-related criminal activity likewise 

support the conclusion that the children’s surroundings endanger their physical or 

emotional well-being. See In re S.D., 980 S.W.2d 758, 763 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 1998, pet. denied).

Under section 161.001(1)(E), the relevant inquiry is whether evidence 

exists that the endangerment of the children’s physical well-being was the direct 

result of the parent’s conduct, including acts, omissions, or failures to act. See 

J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d at 125; see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(E). 

Additionally, termination under (E) must be based on more than a single act or 

omission; the statute requires a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of 

conduct by the parent. J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d at 125; see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 

§ 161.001(1)(E). It is not necessary, however, that the parent’s conduct be 

directed at the children or that the children actually suffer injury. Boyd, 727 

S.W.2d at 533; J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d at 125. The specific danger to the children’s 

well-being may be inferred from parental misconduct standing alone. Boyd, 727 

S.W.2d at 533; In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d 732, 738 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, 

pet. denied).

“To determine whether termination is necessary, courts may look to 

parental conduct occurring both before and after the child’s birth.” In re M.E.-

M.N., 342 S.W.3d 254, 262 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, pet. denied) (citing In 

re D.M., 58 S.W.3d 801, 812 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, no pet.)). A parent’s 

mental state may be considered in determining whether a child is endangered if 
31

that mental state allows the parent to engage in conduct that jeopardizes the 

physical or emotional well-being of the child. In re J.I.T.P., 99 S.W.3d 841, 845 

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.); In re C.D., 664 S.W.2d 851, 853 

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1984, no writ). Further, threats or attempts to commit 

suicide may also contribute to a finding that the parent engaged in a course of 

conduct that is detrimental to a child’s physical or emotional well-being. See In 

re A.M.C., 2 S.W.3d 707, 716 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.).

B. Discussion

Mother argues that there is insufficient evidence that any of her conduct 

impacted the children. Concerning her failure to take medication, Mother argues 

that she was pregnant during one period in which she did not take medication, 

that she was otherwise unable to maintain her medication because of lapses in 

her Medicaid and Medicare coverage, and that she therefore attempted to 

“stretch” her medication to make it last longer. She argues that there is no link 

between her cluttered home and any endangerment to the children, and she 

points to conflicting evidence about the alleged bleach incident and her angry 

outbursts. Mother also argues that although the Department relies on evidence 

concerning her aggressive and volatile behavior to support the trial court’s 

endangerment findings, the Department did not remove the children from her 

care when the incidents allegedly happened. Finally, Mother argues that she 

made “great efforts” to comply with her service plan.
32

The Department responds that there is ample evidence that Mother 

endangered the children, and it points to evidence that Mother took pills and 

asked L.L.F. to help her commit suicide, that Mother refused to take her bipolar 

medication, that living with Mother (given her largely untreated mental illness) 

was chaotic and like torture, that Mother used marijuana during her two most 

recent pregnancies, that Mother used marijuana in the home where the children 

lived, that Mother’s relationships involved domestic violence, and that Mother did

not complete her service plan.

This court has held that a parent’s failure to take medication can create an 

environment or expose a child to an environment that endangers the child’s 

emotional or physical well-being. See In re M.A.P., No. 02-11-00484-CV, 2012 

WL 2036457, at *10 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 7, 2012, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) 

(holding the mother’s failure to take medication for schizophrenia after birth of 

child given the mother’s past conduct without medication was sufficient for trial 

court to conclude that the mother endangered the child); see also In re K.G., 350 

S.W.3d 338, 355 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, pet. denied) (“[T]he trial court 

could have chosen to believe that Mother’s . . . failure to . . . take steps to treat 

her mental health issues demonstrated an inability to provide [the child] with a 

safe environment.”); In re O.E.W.-K., No. 02-10-00199-CV, 2011 WL 1225470, at 

*28 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 31, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Sawyer v.

Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., No. 03-02-00286-CV, 2003 WL 

549216, at *8 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 27, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that 
33

the appellant’s refusal of treatment for her mental illness endangered her 

children)).

In addition to the evidence concerning Mother’s failure to take her bipolar 

medication, the trial court heard testimony concerning Mother’s guarded longterm prognosis without medication, drug use while pregnant, drug use in the 

home, aggressive behavior, and criminal convictions. While the evidence is in 

many respects conflicting, the trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the 

witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. See In re C.S.L.E.H., 

No. 02-10-00475-CV, 2011 WL 3795226, at *5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 25, 

2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also In re T.N., 180 S.W.3d 376, 382–83 (Tex. 

App.—Amarillo 2005, no pet.) (“[T]he fact finder, as opposed to the reviewing 

body, enjoys the right to resolve credibility issues and conflicts within the 

evidence. It may freely choose to believe all, part, or none of the testimony 

espoused by any particular witness.”).

Applying the appropriate standards of review, we hold that the evidence is 

legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s findings that Mother 

engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who had 

engaged in conduct that endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the 

children and knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in 

conditions or surroundings that endangered their physical or emotional wellbeing. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(D), (E); see also H.R.M., 209 
34

S.W.3d at 108; J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d at 573. We thus overrule Mother’s first and 

second issues.12

V. Best Interest

Mother argues in her fourth issue that the evidence is factually insufficient 

to support the trial court’s finding that termination of her parental rights is in the 

children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(2) (requiring clear 

and convincing evidence “that termination is in the best interest of the child”).

A. Applicable Law

There is a strong presumption that keeping a child with a parent is in the 

child’s best interest. In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006). Prompt and 

permanent placement of the child in a safe environment is also presumed to be 

in the child’s best interest. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.307(a) (West 2008). 

Nonexclusive factors that the trier of fact in a termination case may use in 

determining the best interest of the child include:

(A) the desires of the child;

(B) the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the 

future;

(C) the emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the 

future;

(D) the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody; 

 

12Because we have overruled Mother’s first and second issues, we need 

not address her third issue. See In re E.M.N., 221 S.W.3d 815, 821 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2007, no pet.); see also Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
35

(E) the programs available to assist these individuals to promote 

the best interest of the child;

(F) the plans for the child by these individuals or by the agency 

seeking custody;

(G) the stability of the home or proposed placement;

(H) the acts or omissions of the parent which may indicate that the 

existing parent-child relationship is not a proper one; and

(I) any excuse for the acts or omissions of the parent.

Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976) (citations omitted). 

These factors are not exhaustive; some listed factors may be inapplicable to 

some cases; other factors not on the list may also be considered when 

appropriate. C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27. Furthermore, undisputed evidence of just 

one factor may be sufficient in a particular case to support a finding that 

termination is in the best interest of the child. Id. On the other hand, the 

presence of scant evidence relevant to each factor will not support such a 

finding. Id.

B. Discussion

The evidence is discussed in detail above, and we do not repeat it here. 

Applying the Holley factors, we note that Mother regularly attended visitations, 

that Mother and the children interacted well during visitations, and that Mother 

feels bonded to the children. The four youngest children are doing well in foster 

care, but L.L.F. is in an RTC because of her behavior. Mother testified that L.L.F. 

did not act out in her home, but T.L.F. and A.A.H. are both in counseling for 
36

acting out sexually. T.L.F. had also reported that “she’s always seen people 

yelling.” D.H. testified that Mother is a good mother, but he also testified that she 

needs help, that he does not want his daughters A.A.H. and N.C.H. to experience 

the difficulties that Mother’s older children experienced while living with Mother, 

and that it is not a good idea for the court to return the children to her. The trial 

court heard evidence that Mother attempted suicide, that she is hostile and 

aggressive without her medication, and that she does not believe she needs her 

medication and has not taken advantage of the medication management offered 

through MHMR. Mother also used marijuana during two pregnancies and in the 

home and failed to complete her service plan.

Applying the appropriate standard of review, we hold that the evidence is 

factually sufficient to support the trial court’s best interest finding. See H.R.M., 

209 S.W.3d at 108; see also In re S.A.G., No. 02-09-00125-CV, 2010 WL 

1006301, at *9 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 18, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op) 

(discussing mother’s mental health issues in best interest context); In re K.W., 

No. 02-08-00162-CV, 2009 WL 417913, at *6 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 19, 

2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Despite Appellant’s bipolar diagnosis, she did not 

take medication and had not sought treatment from a mental health expert. This 

evidence also tended to show a potential emotional and physical danger to the 

children.”); In re E.A.W.S., No. 02-06-00031-CV, 2006 WL 3525367, at *11–12

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 7, 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding that 

mother’s “instances of mental instability and agitation, including threatening 
37

behavior and suicidal ideation” supported termination); In re K.A.S., 131 S.W.3d 

215, 226 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied) (discussing the emotional 

and physical danger of the mother’s noncompliance in taking medications for her 

bipolar disorder). We thus overrule Mother’s fourth issue.

VI. Conclusion

Having overruled Mother’s dispositive issues, we affirm the trial court’s 

judgment.

ANNE GARDNER

JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GARDNER and GABRIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: July 19, 2012